Political and cultural commentary from the perspective of radical common sense. Opposition to the AMERICAN BIPOLARCHY and ideological fanaticism in all forms. Don't take our word for anything: figure it out for yourself.

11 May 2017

A threat to the republic?

The hysteria over the firing of FBI director Comey continues. "Let’s stipulate that James Comey was a flawed FBI director, and that his
actions during last year’s presidential race cast a cloud over the
integrity of his agency," writes an editor in today's Albany Times Union, "That does not negate the fact that President
Donald Trump’s abrupt firing of him is, in fact, far more troubling than
Mr. Comey’s own missteps. The firing, in this writer's opinion, "is a crisis, and the future of American democracy may be at stake." In other words, it's the moment everyone -- well, a lot of people -- have been waiting for since Trump was elected. The editorial writer certainly doesn't minimize the stakes: "If this president is allowed to fire an FBI director when he finds an
investigation politically threatening — a probe exploring the
possibility of treasonous conduct — and if the House and Senate fail to
respond, the Constitution’s check on executive power and the balance
provided by our tripartite system of government will be rendered
meaningless." The crisis, apparently, is a matter of timing. By now you've all probably heard the argument that since Trump could have fired Comey at any time after his inauguration, we must ask why he acted now, the only answer available, apparently, being that Comey was getting too close to the President's Russia connection. This argument is just a little disingenuous. It fails to acknowledge that Trump would have been criticized for firing Comey at any point in his presidency, and for the same reason. Since his ties to Russia have been an object of scrutiny, and of interest to Comey, since the 2016 campaign, Trump could never move against Comey without it looking like he wanted to suppress a necessary and proper investigation. There are, in fact, signs that the President had grown exasperated with the inquiries and Comey's involvement with them, but an innocent man might be just as exasperated with such inquiries, especially if he had reason to see them as politically motivated, as a man with something to hide. You might say that a man with nothing to hide should not have been exasperated, but does that sound like Donald Trump to you? In any event, I can't take this crisis as seriously as some want me to because I've never taken the whole Russia connection concept as seriously as many do. Let those who do take it seriously show me how Russia is currently dictating American foreign policy. I would have thought that Trump's Syrian shenanigans would have ended this issue, but it hasn't ended because many influential people don't want it to end. And if this is a crisis it's because those people want one. Make no mistake; I think Donald Trump perfectly capable of forcing a crisis through his own malice or stupidity, but what we see right now is boys crying "Wolf!" I hope that doesn't have the usual result when Trump really does something wrong.

7 comments:

President Dimwit looks like a spoiled child again no matter what. If there's evidence of any sort of tampering with the election, where is it? The Russians may well be a convienent target, if but because Trump, as a businessman, has had a positive relationship with Vlad Putin. President Trump, however, has to be totally transparent about past dealings tying into his current administration. If not, the scrutiny will be worse.

Another chicken little, screaming that the sky is falling. These losers make me sick. Anytime they disagree with something, automatically, it spells the end of America or the end of democracy or some such nonsense. These people need to be punched in the face every time they start screaming about the sky falling.

So far the one aspect of the story that's disturbed me is the report (hearsay so far) that Trump asked Comey to "pledge loyalty" to him, but even that is simply more bad form from a president who doesn't give a damn about form. I'm sure all Trump meant was "don't stab me in the back," but people treat it as if he wanted the director to swear the sort of personal loyalty oath that Hitler demanded of German soldiers and bureaucrats. I get that the FBI director's first loyalty is to the Constitution but I doubt that Trump expected Comey to go against the Constitution for his sake. But of course, I've never bought into the "Trump is an incipient dictator" narrative but many still do, if only because Trump is President of the United States at a time when each major party is assumed by the other to be out to "destroy" the nation.

I don't think Comey gives a damn about the Constitution either. Considering that his excuse for ending the investigation into Clinton is that he found no 'intent' behind her actions. Since the specific law she was allegedly guilty of doesn't require proof of intent, I'd guess either he doesn't understand the law, he doesn't understand the job, or he had no intention of filing a prosecutable offense against a Clinton. At any rate, it would seem that HRC is, very probably, guilty of laws regarding transmission of classified information. Whether anyone has the spine to prosecute her or not is another matter entirely.

Comey definitely has issues with Clinton that remain hard to fathom. After feebly exonerating her as you note, he pulled his October surprise almost as if to troll her before retreating with a "Nothing to see here." Yet she still sees that as enough to sink her campaign -- though if that was enough the campaign was on life-support already. I suspect that Comey was too concerned with his popularity or legacy and a desire to appear non-partisan. His October surprise probably was meant to refute any idea that he favored Clinton, and his Russian investigations were meant to refute any idea that he favored Trump.

Clinton, and the Dems, can't seem to fathom the simple fact that Clinton is unelectable to a large enough number of members of the electoral college that she will, most likely, NEVER get into the oval office. As long as the Dems remain the Clinton party, rather than the party of the left, the Dems will continue to lose elections. Clinton lost the election because of Clinton. Not because of Comey, or the Russians, or Bernie Bros or any other lame-ass excuse they dredge up. Clinton lost the election because of who and what people perceive her as being. That fact can't be hammered home enough. There are far too many of us who will not support her, nor will we support a political party that supports her. If she really cared about the Democrats, she'd step away from the political game and retire. For good.

It is not the job of the FBI's director to favor any politician, but to investigate crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of his bureau to the best of his ability. Comey was incapable of doing this. It is one of the duties of the President to ensure that incompetent people do not remain at the helm of any government-funded entity within the executive branch. To NOT fire an incompetent civil servant out of fear of it being seen as some sort of politically-motivated 'witch hunt' would have been far more of a mistake for any President to make. Once elected, it is NOT the job of the President to be 'liked' by the media or his political opposition. It IS his job to fulfill the duties and obligations he took on with the oath of office.